80 activists staged a decommissioning of the Tihange reactor in Belgium. A projection was made on a cooling tower, at the same time, several 'decommissioning teams' entered the site, including ten climbers, who unfolded banners between the chimneys of the reactors. 50 activists also placed a large nuclear barrel and various smaller barrels at the main entrance.

In Switzerland, about 100 Greenpeace activists from six different countries entered the station at Beznau. They climbed the superstructure of the reactor and hung banners demanding the immediate shut-down of the 45 year old power plant while a paraglider circled the sky.

In Sweden, twenty activists entered the the Oskarshamn nuclear power plant and four climbers unfolded a massive banner in the shape of a "pension notification letter" from the top of the reactor roof. Sweden has four of the ten oldest and most worn reactors in Europe.

In Spain, 30 activists started to 'decommission' the Garoña nuclear power plant. Protestors chained themselves to the gates and unfolded banners as workers from the plant sprayed them with water cannons.

In the Netherlands, an animation of stress cracks and crumbling was projected onto the Borselle plant in the South of the country.

In France a 'decommissioning team' symbolically blocked the entrance to the Bugey station and started to 'decommission' the plant by taking down signs.

Europe can't rely on old reactors to deliver the carbon reductions needed to save the climate. A single greenhouse gas reduction-target for 2030 is, therefore, out of the question. We need binding European and national targets of 45% renewables and 55% carbon emissions cuts by 2030.

You guys don't get it, nuclear power is the way forward. They do not produce carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gasses and will provide us with po...

You guys don't get it, nuclear power is the way forward. They do not produce carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gasses and will provide us with power for many years to come.
Stop protesting against everything and using antisocial behaviour to get you message across.

@bob2 - I am afraid we get it, Bob. Nuclear power plants cannot help saving the climate in any substantial way. The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency calculated that quadrupling the global nuclear fleet capacity before 2050 (let's for the sake of argument think that the necessary construction of 1400 large nuclear at a rate of over 35 per year is somehow possible) would reduce greenhouse gas emissions with less than 6% compared with business as usual. That is marginal and it happens too late (around 70% of it after 2030). In the mean time they divert attention and lots of capital from the real solutions: energy efficiency and clean renewable sources.
Greenpeace never protests against something if we don't have an alternative. In this case it is the energy [r]evolution scenario that you can find on: http://www.energyblueprint.info.

"The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency calculated that quadrupling the global nuclear fleet capacity before 2050 (let's for the sake of argument thi...

"The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency calculated that quadrupling the global nuclear fleet capacity before 2050 (let's for the sake of argument think that the necessary construction of 1400 large nuclear at a rate of over 35 per year is somehow possible) would reduce greenhouse gas emissions with less than 6% compared with business as usual."

A quadrupling in 36 years is a 3.9-percent annual increase. There are no physical constraints preventing much quicker expansion.

There are, of course, political constraints: the fossil fuel sector subsidizes government, and professional environmentalist groups speak for that money.

If a member of one of those groups were to dissociate himself from their might-makes-right argument, he might still eventually die of cancer -- but he would know he no longer *deserved* this.

@GRLCowan - interesting to read your view on the world. You talk about 3.9% but do not translate that into what the OECD/NEA states it means on the ground: 320 new 1000 MW NPPs before 2030 and then an average of 54 reactors per year. No physical constrains? Big forgings? Certified construction workers? Maybe for a sense of reality look at Flamanville and Olkiluoto and indicate how you think this can be done 33 times per year for 20 years at a stretch (compensated for the larger capacity of the EPR).
But I also said "let's assume it is possible"... Nuclear still remains of marginal importance - so marginal it can even in those scenarios easily be replaced by a bit more efficiency and renewables.

To assume there is a fossil fuel conspiracy against nuclear is indeed strange. Especially because most large nuclear utilities are also large fossil utilities. And that includes even EDF from France, the world's biggest nuclear utility, and TEPCO, the worlds biggest utility and owner of the Fukushima Daiichi plant.

For good order: Greenpeace does not accept any money from governments or corporations. It is for over 90% financed by around 3 million individuals. Our judgements are evidence based, not sponsor based.

Also for good order: The Greenpeace / EREC energy [r]evolution scenario foresees also a phase-out of most fossil energy sources in the OECD countries before 2050. We are also actively fighting a reduction of fossil in the mix all over the globe.

Your map of EPP does not include the UK, why? Although an island the UK is part of Europe We have 7 ageing Advanced Gas Cooled Reactors (AGR's) here: Dungeness B, Hartlepool, Heysham 1, Heysham 2, Hinkley Point B, Hunterston and Torness.

Dear Barrie, The AGR reactors are mentioned in the full report, but not in the briefing which focusses on the large bulk of reactors in Europe, which are either BWRs or PWRs. But you are fuly right. This dicussion is as relevant for the English, Welsh and Scottish ageing nuclear fleet as it is for the continental one.

You can find some AGR issues in paragraphs 2.4.14 (United Kingdom) and 3.2.2 (Gas-cooled reactors) of the first part of the report and on page 75 (pdf page 79) of the second part of the report which you can download on:

Even though we are not the source of the problems, we also like working on solutions :-) Always optimistic in mood, realistic in method. On energy issues, you can find a good summary of our solution work in the energy [r]evolution scenarios on global, regional and for many countries on national level. Enjoy reading.

And For New Central To Waterfall? And the Nuclear Reactor On Finland?And The Famigerate Sendai Nuclear "Damage" Mr. Abu and your lobbyes Con...

And For New Central To Waterfall? And the Nuclear Reactor On Finland?And The Famigerate Sendai Nuclear "Damage" Mr. Abu and your lobbyes Continuos the Your Operative Reprise....The Disaster of Fukushima don't Learn, Don't Learn At Human Greed.